Appeal No. 1997-2455
Application 08/318,235
difference is not shown by the language of claim 29. On pages
5 and 6 of the answer, the Examiner asserts that when the
variable load is applied to the coil capacitor combination, it
will in operation vary the resonating frequency of the coil
capacitor combination.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Appellants’ claim 29
includes that “a transducer having a resonant frequency, the
resonant frequency being settable” and “the control means
setting the resonant frequency of the transducer.” Claim 29
does not define how the resonant frequency is adjusted. On
page 16 of the brief, Appellants point out that page 14 of the
specification states that the adjustment of the resonant
frequency of the coil capacitor combination is accomplished by
using a variable inductor or a variable capacitor. However,
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007